Ravinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was an Ex-Serviceman and had joined the respondent-bank as a Class-IV employee in August, 1990. As per the Punjab Urban Cooperative Bank Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as ''1991 Rules''), petitioner was entitled to continue in service upto 60 years. However, as per the Punjab Urban Cooperative Bank Service Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred as ''2001 Rules''), which came into force with effect from 1.8.2001, all the employees in the service of the bank, were to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his service conditions were liable to be governed as per 1991 Rules. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was liable to continue in service upto 60 years in view of 1991 Rules. So far as 2001 Rules were concerned, the same were not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Tara Chand, a Peon working with Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur, had been allowed to continue upto the age of 60 years vide Annexure P-6. Case of the petitioner was on similar footing with the case of Tara Chand.

Learned counsel for the respondent-bank, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable against the bank. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that 1991 Rules had been superseded by 2001 Rules. Therefore, as per Rule 18 of 2001 Rules, petitioner was liable to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years. So far as Tara Chand, Peon is concerned, he was working with Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur. The conditions of service of Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur, were governed by Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, 1958. The said rules had no application to the respondent-bank.

In the present case, petitioner was working with the respondent-bank as a Gunman and was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Admittedly, as per 1991 Rules, petitioner could continue in service upto attaining the age of 60 years whereas as per 2001 Rules, all employees of the bank shall retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years.

Rule 27 of 2001 Rules reads as under:-

Saving and Repeal:

(a) Save as otherwise provided, the rules of the government shall apply in all matters not covered by these rules,

(b) These rules shall supersede all previous rules on the subject unless otherwise specified.

Rule 18 of 2001 Rules reads as under:-

Retirement:

(a) All employees in the service of the Bank shall retire from the service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years.

(b) x x x

(c) x x x

Thus, 2001 Rules superseded the earlier rules. Consequently, petitioner was governed by 2001 Rules with effect from 1.8.2001. As per 2001 Rules, petitioner was liable to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years. So far as Tara Chand is concerned, the bank, in which he was working, was governed by different rules. As per the rules applicable to Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur, the age of retirement of Class-IV employees is 60 years. The case of the petitioner is not at par with Tara Chand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that any employee, similarly situated as the petitioner, had been allowed to continue in service by the respondent-bank beyond the age of 58 years.

In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.